Disagree When its a republican the focus is on foreign policy failures and mistakes,when its a democrat the media and people couldn't care less
I don't see it. Kemp never got the presidential nomination. He was also far more conservative than Christie and a former football star to boot. He was liberal on one issue, affirmative action, and used it to curry favor with the liberal media. Reagan was widely regarded as far too conservative to be elected. The Republican establishment forced Bush on him for just that reason. Reagan and Kemp were both team players. Christie by contrast is all about Christie. He showed his true colors when he sucked up to obama the week before the election. I believe he was pissed he didn't get the VP slot and that was his payback. Ironically, I thought he would have been the strongest VP pick. I still do. Ryan was a disaster. Romney may well have won the election if he had gone with him instead of Ryan. Whatever. Republicans have now lost twice to obama by nominating candidates who supposedly appealed to independents and crossover voters. Both went out of their way to avoid attacking Obama. Both were slimed by the democrat hate machine, while the media looked the other way or snickered. To paraphrase Howard Dean, maybe it's time we nominated someone from the republican wing of the party. It would be very helpful if they actually wanted to win, something I had doubts about with McCain and Romney.
While Romney has a record of a moderate or even liberal he ran as a hard right candidate and promised hard right policies,any republican candidate doing that will get destroyed
The media will frame it to the democrats advantage or ignore it.Afghanistan had the highest US death tolls of the war under Obama and it didn't matter one bit.Iraq was rarely discussed while it was going on under Obama but it was mentioned daily under Bush
Who cares what Christie has to say? He is a north eastern republican which pretty much means he is a democrat. If you don't know what I am talking about then Google 'Mitt Romney'. In my opinion the NRA deserves it. What a bunch of idiots to suggest that we need armed guards at schools? You do realize that 99.9999% of them will be doing nothing but sitting on their asses, drinking coffee, and eating donuts. In about 6 months after taking that job they will be so fat and out of shape that they wouldn't be able to stop a damn thing. If a school shooting were to happen they would be the first to get shot because they are such big targets. Armed guards in schools. Get real.
You give them rounds to make inside and outside the building. You have them moving most of the time. It's not a sit around and wait for an incident type of job. Then they have patrols around the arriving cars when school is starting and letting out. Security is not just waiting around for an assailant.
And you have a journal full of lies that was moved to Chit Chat for that very reason. Hard to get much lower than a phony journal.
Many schools already have armed guards. i guarantee you that every public and most private schools here in Dc do. Of course, they are there mainly to deal with gang violence among the animals who attend these schools, but if an armed guard is okay at Sidwell Friends, why not at Anytown High? I think there are more cost effective alternatives in many districts. Having a few teachers, coaches or administrators armed surreptitiously is probably adequate for a lot of rural districts. I was in an upscale jewelry store in an very upscale mall outside Washington. They had a guard who would not have looked outclassed in your average SEAL team. He certainlky wasn't sitting around chowing down donuts. He was assessing every person who came into the store and making eye contact with them. Do our kids deserve less? Cover the cost by firing a few deadwood resource officers or counselors. Better yet, fire half the central office administrators.